Misuse of official position by a bank officer to credit funds personally justifies removal from service.

The Appellant, an Assistant Manager with the Central Bank of India, was proceeded against departmentally concerning a cheque for ₹4,93,659 issued by Third Wave Services Pvt. Ltd. The Bank alleged that the cheque, which was in the Appellant’s custody, had been altered by adding “A/c Rakesh Nanda” after “Yourself”, processed through the Bank’s system despite being stale, and credited to the Appellant’s personal account. The amount was subsequently reversed and credited back to Third Wave. The Bank also alleged that the Appellant had drawn salary advances of ₹42,000 against a net salary of ₹28,715.20, failed to adjust them against the relevant month’s salary, and later liquidated them through cash deposits

The Enquiring Authority found both charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, without disqualification for future employment, and the departmental appeal was dismissed

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Appellant’s writ petition, holding that the inquiry complied with natural justice and that the findings were supported by evidence

The present intra-court appeal challenged that decision.

Whether the findings sustaining Charge No. 1 were unsupported by evidence, perverse, or vitiated by failure to consider the Appellant’s case that the cheque represented a short-term loan which had been repaid?

Whether the finding sustaining Charge No. 2 was unsustainable because the salary advances had been approved and subsequently repaid with interest?

Whether the departmental proceedings violated the principles of natural justice or otherwise warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Whether removal from service was disproportionate to the proved misconduct, particularly considering the repayment of the amount, the Appellant’s length of service, and his prior disciplinary record?

In judicial review of departmental proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate court over the disciplinary authority’s factual findings. Interference is justified only where the inquiry violates natural justice, the findings are unsupported by evidence, relevant material is ignored, irrelevant material is relied upon, or the conclusions are irrational or perverse

Regulation 16 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 prohibits an officer from drawing salary in advance or overdrawing an account without prior approval of the competent authority

The Court also applied the principle that bank officers occupy positions of trust and are required to maintain the highest standards of integrity; relying on Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, it held that misuse of official position and consequent loss of institutional trust may justify a severe penalty

Judicial review of punishment is limited, and interference is warranted only where the penalty is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the Court

The Court held that Charge No. 1 was supported by the evidence showing that the cheque was in the Appellant’s custody, that he added his own name to the payee description, caused the stale cheque to be processed through the Bank’s system, and authorised credit into his personal account

The alleged purpose of the cheque—whether commission, processing charges, or a short-term loan—did not alter the essential misconduct: the Appellant used the Bank’s internal processes and official position to obtain credit in his own favour.

The subsequent reversal of the entry and the Clarification Letter from Third Wave did not negate the improper handling of the cheque

The Enquiring Authority’s observation that loans are generally advanced in round figures was treated as, at most, an ancillary inference; the remaining evidence independently sustained the charge

As to Charge No. 2, the Court found that the charge was not confined to the absence of prior approval. It also concerned the excessive advances, their non-adjustment against the relevant salary, and their subsequent repayment through cash deposits. Approval of the initial withdrawals and later payment of interest did not eliminate the financial irregularity

The inquiry was conducted with adequate opportunity to cross-examine the Bank’s witness, lead defence evidence, and respond to the inquiry report; therefore, no breach of natural justice was established

Finally, although repayment, absence of ultimate financial loss, and the Clarification Letter were mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the misuse of official position. In light of the Appellant’s prior penalty for failure to maintain password confidentiality, removal from service fell within the range of penalties reasonably open to the disciplinary authority

The order dated 06.05.2026 of the learned Single Judge, which had upheld the disciplinary order dated 30.08.2014 and appellate order dated 17.12.2014, was affirmed.

The pending application was disposed of, with no order as to costs